Should we ban perfume and cologne?

[Crotchety Old Man]

I sat beside a couple at the movies this past weekend, and they both were soaked down in mass quantities of perfume and cologne - I could hardly taste my popcorn. The movie was sold out, so I couldn't pick another seat, so I had to enjoy their chosen scents for two hours. My eyes were watering by the end.

I'm all for hygiene, but the use of perfume or cologne is as bad as smoking in my book. I'd like to see similar laws to those they have for smoking in public applied to these stinkers.

No scents makes sense!

[EH100501AC]

No, but I think deodorant sprays should be banned.

[CodecX81]

Don't hate the product, hate the people that don't understand the fact of moderation.

For anyone that does this..

If you can smell your own scent, you are wearing TOO MUCH!

I think we do need to adopt a form of "finishing school" at the end of High school, to add a little common sense and culture to everyones life. A lot of girls don't know how to properly apply makeup either. Laying it on thick with the wrong colours just makes you look like a freak of nature.

[boonjaca]

I don't think this should be banned, I think cologone and perfume is fine. I actually wear it to work and one of my co-workers too. The key is to not lay it on so heavily so that it kills the people around you.

[lain]

Don't hate the product, hate the people that don't understand the fact of moderation.


Agreed.

It is just another instance of people being rude/inconsiderate.

[Ferman]

No scents makes sense!

I would rather not smell the natural body odor that certain cultures don't have a problem with.

[Shaner]

Sure, lets ban them.
While were at it, lets ban aftershave, scented deoderant, scented shampoo and conditioner and every other imaginable scent in existance.
We wouldn't want to offend the delicate nature of some people.

It's a free world, deal with it. You start banning everything that one person doesn't like and there will be nothing left.

[Ferman]

It's a free world, deal with it. You start banning everything that one person doesn't like and there will be nothing left.

Lets ban people that want to ban things.

[robattoronto]

No, that would be dumb. Cuz you can't cater to everyone's pet peeves. There's better solutions than that.

Like making a special section for grumpy senior citizens. ;)

[CodecX81]

Lets ban people that want to ban things.
lol Yea!

Down with protesters, down with protesters!
What do we want?
Civil order, dictacted by bureaucracy!
When do we want it?
EVENTUALLY!

[FastFokker]

People who dislike the air around them should purchase their a portable air purification device.

Then they can walk around go out in public without concern over contaminated air.

[dark169]

I say suck it up. DOes it suck, yes, but guess what so does sitting next to a huge fat guy on a plane, or being behind a 82civic that burns oil during rush hour.

I never knew of the link between smeeling overly good and causing lung cancer, but thanks to this post I now know :lol:

[mlc2000]

Lets ban people that want to ban things.

Or better yet, ban people whom take stupid polls about banning stuff.

Why not have a ban people who eat chili/cabbage for dinner and then come to work the next day with their (un)natural scents. :lol:

[Txiasaeia]

No, that would be dumb. Cuz you can't cater to everyone's pet peeves. There's better solutions than that.

Like making a special section for grumpy senior citizens. ;)

For some people, it's not just a pet peeve.

http://allergies.about.com/cs/fragrances/a/aa022299_2.htm

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Commentary/News/2003/2003-0212-MSNBC-lyman.htm

http://allnaturalbeauty.us/chemicalsensitivities_jrussell.htm

[FastFokker]

Some people have allergies to sunlight, should we ban the sun? :confused:

[Txiasaeia]

Some people have allergies to sunlight, should we ban the sun? :confused:

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it. Last time I checked, perfumes and colognes weren't necessary to sustain life on the entire bloody planet. Or has there been some drastic change to the world's ecosystem in the last few minutes that I'm unaware of?

[d_jedi]

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it. Last time I checked, perfumes and colognes weren't necessary to sustain life on the entire bloody planet. Or has there been some drastic change to the world's ecosystem in the last few minutes that I'm unaware of?
You could argue it does. Consider: would you shack up with someone who reeks horribly, or do you think anyone would want to do so with you if you stunk? I don't think so. No sex = no pregnancies = no human race.

:D

[vladislav]

I can't stand smells, parfume or otherwise, but there's no way in hell something like that will get banned (plus, who cares really).

[FastFokker]

That's a ridiculous comparison and you know it. Last time I checked, perfumes and colognes weren't necessary to sustain life on the entire bloody planet. Or has there been some drastic change to the world's ecosystem in the last few minutes that I'm unaware of?
Oh, I just wanted to know if there was a line drawn, apparently there is. :confused:

Yes, I know it's ridiculous, and I'm all about being realistic and using common sense.

Banning scents is not realistic or using common sense.

Just as there are people who can't stand those who are overly fragrant from perfrume/cologne, there are probably just as many or more who can't stand those who are overly fragrant from body odour.

I personally dislike when people wear "too much" perfume, but that's my personal limit and shouldn't be legislated by the government. If I go to the theatre and buddy next to me stinks, I'll move.

[Txiasaeia]

You could argue it does. Consider: would you shack up with someone who reeks horribly, or do you think anyone would want to do so with you if you stunk? I don't think so. No sex = no pregnancies = no human race.

:D

So what, perfume's required for sex now, too? Can it cure cancer and solve the world hunger issue as well? I had no idea that people were slathering on such advanced organisms simply because they *smell good*. Next time I cut off an arm, I'll get some CK & see if that won't work better than going to the hospital!

(edit: I hate emoticons, so please, please don't think that I'm being serious or sarcastic here.)

[Txiasaeia]

Banning scents is not realistic or using common sense.

Oh, really? Then why have some hospitals and health clinics started to ban cologne/perfume? Hmm... you don't think... no, it couldn't be that these scents have a negative health impact upon the sick, do you? You think that nurses who work with asthmatic kids in a children's hosptial should be allowed to wear whatever scents they want, because banning scents isn't realistic?

Just as there are people who can't stand those who are overly fragrant from perfrume/cologne, there are probably just as many or more who can't stand those who are overly fragrant from body odour.

I personally dislike when people wear "too much" perfume, but that's my personal limit and shouldn't be legislated by the government. If I go to the theatre and buddy next to me stinks, I'll move.

Sounds like the old smoking argument again. If people want to wear perfume/cologne in the comfort of their own home, I've got no problem with that, but in public, that scent can have an adverse health effect on the general public.

[FastFokker]

Oh, really? Then why have some hospitals and health clinics started to ban cologne/perfume? Hmm... you don't think... no, it couldn't be that these scents have a negative health impact upon the sick, do you? You think that nurses who work with asthmatic kids in a children's hosptial should be allowed to wear whatever scents they want, because banning scents isn't realistic?
Hospitals/Health Clinics don't allow a lot of things. What's your point?

Airports don't allow certain things, should we just ban those items from society? No of course not, so what the heck does a hospital have to do with this?

This is just silly... :lol:

[SergesPlace]

I'm all for hygiene, but the use of perfume or cologne is as bad as smoking in my book. I'd like to see similar laws to those they have for smoking in public applied to these stinkers.

No scents makes sense!

Don't hate the product, hate the people that don't understand the fact of moderation.

For anyone that does this..




http://www.notebookforums.com/images/smilies/headscratch.gif

[Txiasaeia]

Airports don't allow certain things, should we just ban those items from society? No of course not, so what the heck does a hospital have to do with this?

If something is harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society, why should it be allowed to be widely used in society?

[mlc2000]

If something is harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society, why should it be allowed to be widely used in society?

I can't think of any other product like that. Oh sorry, cigarettes.
Thats legal too.

[Txiasaeia]

I can't think of any other product like that. Oh sorry, cigarettes.
Thats legal too.

So your personal code of ethics is decided by what Canada decides is legal or not?

[FastFokker]

If something is harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society, why should it be allowed to be widely used in society?
If we started banning the use of all things which can do harm to people, we will be living in a very sad place.

Then America will invade us and try to liberate us.

[dark169]

If something is harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society, why should it be allowed to be widely used in society?

becuase if everyone was forced to cater to the weak it woudl be a very bland place

For example why shouldn't I be able to feed my kid a PB/J sandwich at school, how is it my fault/resposniblity to baby sit someone elses alergy...

Should we ban bee's and sunlight as people have adverse effects to those as well.

people who have problems with alergies need to live with that fact, if a business isn't going to cater to them they have to do without. second hand smoke is a health risk for everyone reguardles, the conection to this topic is weak at best.

[poedua]

If we started banning the use of all things which can do harm to people, we will be living in a very sad place..

Should we not ban peanut-based products in public schools if they might trigger anaphylactic shock in children ?

Should we not ban smoking in public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees ?

Should we not ban perfumes in enclosed public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees?


Then America will invade us and try to liberate us.

Red Herring.

I'll say one thing...you're very consitent in your fallacious reasoning......- i.e an American invasion - introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.....perfume / allergies/ rights of those with medical disabilites.

[poedua]

becuase if everyone was forced to cater to the weak it woudl be a very bland place

For example why shouldn't I be able to feed my kid a PB/J sandwich at school, how is it my fault/resposniblity to baby sit someone elses alergy...

Should we ban bee's and sunlight as people have adverse effects to those as well.

people who have problems with alergies need to live with that fact, if a business isn't going to cater to them they have to do without. second hand smoke is a health risk for everyone reguardles, the conection to this topic is weak at best.

Your statement....

" people who have problems with alergies need to live with that fact, if a business isn't going to cater to them they have to do "

instead of allergies........by comparison, should people with physical disabilites ( i.e in wheelchairs ) not expect that employers MUST cater their special needs....shouldn'ty people with medical disabilties ( allergies that could kill ) expect the same ?

So if your daughter had a peanut allergy that could kill her ( i.e she needs to carry around a an epi-pen ) ...you would support every kid in her school being able to bring PB&J sandwiches to school 5 days a week - fine- would have her schooled at home or would you send her to this chool - knowing she was taking her life into her own hands by going. She could easily go in to shock 5 days a week at school.

[FastFokker]

Should we not ban peanut-based products in public schools if they might trigger anaphylactic shock in children ?
That judgement was or wasn't made, though peanut-based products are not entirely banned. I say "was or wasn't" as I'm confident you are correct that it has been banned in your locale, but I can't say for certain whether it is banned in my locale.
Should we not ban smoking in public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees ?
Sorry, smoking is still allowed in most places in Nova Scotia. I believe it's only no smoking with X feet of a government building.

The judgement was or wasn't made apparently in Ontario, though smoking is not entirely banned.
Should we not ban perfumes in enclosed public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees?Where is the "public space" that contains "employees" that you are referring to? Is this the hospital again?

Judgements over businesses can be made, and if they are made, then so be it. As for entirely banning an item, that's just ridiculous.

[mlc2000]

Next thing you'll want to ban me for my natural perfume...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/itsfatboy/b101a26a.jpg

[poedua]

Next thing you'll want to ban me for my natural perfume...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/itsfatboy/b101a26a.jpg

No...your lack of tact would be reason enough

[poedua]

That judgement was or wasn't made, though peanut-based products are not entirely banned. I say "was or wasn't" as I'm confident you are correct that it has been banned in your locale, but I can't say for certain whether it is banned in my locale.

Sorry, smoking is still allowed in most places in Nova Scotia. I believe it's only no smoking with X feet of a government building.

The judgement was or wasn't made apparently in Ontario, though smoking is not entirely banned.
Where is the "public space" that contains "employees" that you are referring to? Is this the hospital again?

Judgements over businesses can be made, and if they are made, then so be it. As for entirely banning an item, that's just ridiculous.

I'm asking for you opinion/ philosophical stand on these issues...so I am clear on your position ...so I'll ask again....

1. Should we not ban peanut-based products in public schools if they might trigger anaphylactic shock in children ?
My answer to this is YES - I support a ban of bringing peanuts in to all elementary schools.

What about you ? YES or NO ?

2. Should we not ban smoking in public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees ?
My answer to this is YES - I support a ban of smoking in ALL public places

What about you ? YES or NO ?

3. Should we not ban perfumes in enclosed public spaces if they trigger anything from asthma attacks to anaphylactic shock in employees?
My answer to this is modified YES - I support a ban of perfumes in ALL enclosed places of employment.

What about you ? YES or NO ?

[Txiasaeia]

becuase if everyone was forced to cater to the weak it woudl be a very bland place

For example why shouldn't I be able to feed my kid a PB/J sandwich at school, how is it my fault/resposniblity to baby sit someone elses alergy...

You do know that nuts aren't allowed in most elementary schools now, right?

Should we ban bee's and sunlight as people have adverse effects to those as well.

Again, this is a ridiculous argument. We cannot "ban" bees and sunlight. We *can* ban peanut butter, smoking, and perfume.

people who have problems with alergies need to live with that fact, if a business isn't going to cater to them they have to do without. second hand smoke is a health risk for everyone reguardles, the conection to this topic is weak at best.

And what about peanut butter? Now that you've brought it up, there have been two cases of people either dying or almost dying *in the world press* over the last six months because somebody allergic to peanut butter merely kissed somebody who had eaten it. Peanut butter is obviously a health risk, as is smoking, as is perfume.

[Txiasaeia]

Judgements over businesses can be made, and if they are made, then so be it. As for entirely banning an item, that's just ridiculous.

Why? If something is so detrimental to one's health that *hospitals* have forbidden it's use, then why shouldn't we ban it in the rest of society?

[FastFokker]

Why? If something is so detrimental to one's health that *hospitals* have forbidden it's use, then why shouldn't we ban it in the rest of society?Are you saying that whatever a hospital bans from it's premises should be banned from all of society, or at least any form of "public" society?

I'm just not sure if we're arguing against each other, with each other or somewhere inbetween.

Many things are banned from hospitals, which are not banned from society. I think that's reasonable, but that's just me.

[poedua]

Are you saying that whatever a hospital bans from it's premises should be banned from all of society, or at least any form of "public" society?

I'm just not sure if we're arguing against each other, with each other or somewhere inbetween.

Many things are banned from hospitals, which are not banned from society. I think that's reasonable, but that's just me.

Do you support bans on peanuts and smoking ?

[The_Madz]

my highschool had a policy of "no scents makes sense" where you were not allowed to wear heavy cologone and perfume.

frankly i enjoyed that. nothing is worse than people who take showers in cologne and perfurme. seriously if they ahe a problem with odor take a shower and wear deoderant.

banning is perhaps not the best choice of words..some areas should have it banned i think, such as schools, hopsitals and government buildigns. but i think the better choice is to educate people that a little goes a looong way and let private business make their own rules.

but i think it would be heard to say where the limit is. how much scent is too much?

[FastFokker]

banning is perhaps not the best choice of words..some areas should have it banned i think, such as schools, hopsitals and government buildigns. but i think the better choice is to educate people that a little goes a looong way and let private business make their own rules.This is pretty much my sentiment.

I'm not sure if I'm arguing with or against some of you, as I myself dislike people who dump perfume/cologne all over themselves.

*BUT* my primary objection is in the use of the term "banning" and it's relation to the term "public".

[najibs]

I'd prefer to smell a strong cologne, rather than B.O.

[Txiasaeia]

Are you saying that whatever a hospital bans from it's premises should be banned from all of society, or at least any form of "public" society?

I think that, if something has been banned as a potentially life-threatening substance from a hospital, then the general public should take a hint and stop wearing scents. I wouldn't personally support a ban on perfume/cologne, but I would support a 200% tax on them that would go towards the asthma wards of children's hosptials. 300%, 400%, whatever.

[najibs]

I think that, if something has been banned as a potentially life-threatening substance from a hospital, then the general public should take a hint and stop wearing scents. I wouldn't personally support a ban on perfume/cologne, but I would support a 200% tax on them that would go towards the asthma wards of children's hosptials. 300%, 400%, whatever.

Let me get this straight, the scent of cologne/perfume causes asthma?

[rluc]

I sat beside a couple at the movies this past weekend, and they both were soaked down in mass quantities of perfume and cologne - I could hardly taste my popcorn. The movie was sold out, so I couldn't pick another seat, so I had to enjoy their chosen scents for two hours. My eyes were watering by the end.

I'm all for hygiene, but the use of perfume or cologne is as bad as smoking in my book. I'd like to see similar laws to those they have for smoking in public applied to these stinkers.

No scents makes sense!

If it offends the Muslims, then chances are, its going to be banned eventually by our government.

[najibs]

I have allergies to pollen, as do many people. Shall we get rid of all flowers, trees, and vegetation in that case?

[najibs]

If it offends the Muslims, then chances are, its going to be banned eventually by our government.

Ok, you're getting off topic here, with something irrelevant. Let's not start another muslim anger thread.

[najibs]

Why? If something is so detrimental to one's health that *hospitals* have forbidden it's use, then why shouldn't we ban it in the rest of society?

Hospitals (for people) forbid animals onto their premesis, and are therefore banned there. SO that means we shouldn't have pets in our houses and ban them from society too, correct?

[Freak]

Your statement....

" people who have problems with alergies need to live with that fact, if a business isn't going to cater to them they have to do "

instead of allergies........by comparison, should people with physical disabilites ( i.e in wheelchairs ) not expect that employers MUST cater their special needs....shouldn'ty people with medical disabilties ( allergies that could kill ) expect the same ?

So if your daughter had a peanut allergy that could kill her ( i.e she needs to carry around a an epi-pen ) ...you would support every kid in her school being able to bring PB&J sandwiches to school 5 days a week - fine- would have her schooled at home or would you send her to this chool - knowing she was taking her life into her own hands by going. She could easily go in to shock 5 days a week at school.
I was going to bring up the Peanut Butter ban as I was reading this thread, and then saw that someone did. I have severe nut allergies and so does my younger brother. We have both had to live through our allergies and I think this is fair. As long as people are made aware of your particular allergy (as there are lots) and you as a person with allergies is cautious - then I don't see why a ban is necessary? I will be teaching my children to be respectful of other people conditions regardless of they have allergies or a physical/mental disabilty - and at the same time to be consiouous of there own role in ensuring they are safe (if they have allergies or any type of disability). No more...no less.
NO BANS!! I don't think cigarettes would have needed to be banned if people were a little bit more respectful of there fellow human beings...most smokers aren't!

Freak

[Crotchety Old Man]

I'd prefer to smell a strong cologne, rather than B.O.
Just to restate my original position - I'm all for hygiene. This means our standard societal norms of regular showering (with unscented soaps and shampoos) and the wearing of (unscented) deodorant.

Though, if people used perfume/cologne as CodecX81 describes below, I probably would have never raised the issue in the first place:
Don't hate the product, hate the people that don't understand the fact of moderation.

For anyone that does this..

If you can smell your own scent, you are wearing TOO MUCH!

[poedua]

Hospitals (for people) forbid animals onto their premesis, and are therefore banned there. ?

SO that means we shouldn't have pets in our houses and ban them from society too, correct?

You're 100% wrong...dogs are allowed in hospitals .

I have a relative in the hospital now as we speak ( been there a month now ) recovering from a stroke.

He's visietd 3 times a week by a program that brings a very friendly golden retriever ( there's 2 of them I think ) on to the floor to visit the patients - he loves it.

[poedua]

I have allergies to pollen, as do many people. Shall we get rid of all flowers, trees, and vegetation in that case?

can it cause you to go in to shock ?

[poedua]

This is pretty much my sentiment.

I'm not sure if I'm arguing with or against some of you, as I myself dislike people who dump perfume/cologne all over themselves.

*BUT* my primary objection is in the use of the term "banning" and it's relation to the term "public".

Lets' dump the word " ban " then....would you not permit peanuts in schools or smoking in an enclosed workplace ? Or,....... would you permit / allow both ?

[danfromwaterloo]

I sat beside a couple at the movies this past weekend, and they both were soaked down in mass quantities of perfume and cologne - I could hardly taste my popcorn. The movie was sold out, so I couldn't pick another seat, so I had to enjoy their chosen scents for two hours. My eyes were watering by the end.

I'm all for hygiene, but the use of perfume or cologne is as bad as smoking in my book. I'd like to see similar laws to those they have for smoking in public applied to these stinkers.

No scents makes sense!

I have no idea where to start with this, but okay, lets start with a few things:

1) Just because you don't like something doesn't make it okay to make it illegal.
2) Nobody has died from scent overload.
3) Why not try to make "being an irritation" a crime?
4) At what level does smell become considered excessive/illegal?
5) What smells are you deeming illegal? If I walk out of a restaurant and smell like spagetti, am I committing an illegal act?
6) If some people don't smell strongly like cologne, they smell strongly like underarms. Stinky underarms.

I trust the point has been made. They can wear their cologne, as much as some people hate it. Not making it irritating is common courtesy. That can't be made illegal. Plus, if you do, you'll be complaining that people don't bathe enough. Pick your poison.

[Txiasaeia]

Let me get this straight, the scent of cologne/perfume causes asthma?

It inflames and irritates it, just like smoking does.

[Txiasaeia]

Hospitals (for people) forbid animals onto their premesis, and are therefore banned there. SO that means we shouldn't have pets in our houses and ban them from society too, correct?

You're being purposely obtuse.

[Txiasaeia]

2) Nobody has died from scent overload.

Are you absolutely sure that not a single person has died as a result of scent inhalation? We're talking people with asthma, pneumonia, various other respiratory diseases... how sure are you of the above statement?

[danfromwaterloo]

It inflames and irritates it, just like smoking does.

Right, but smoking CAUSES harm...perfume IRRITATES a pre-existing condition.

Lets say that I'm lactose intolerant. Does that mean milk should be made illegal because I can't take it? No. Does that mean that if I drink milk by accident in foods that its not my fault? No. This is my problem, and I need to be aware that milk may have come into contact with this food. My issue shouldn't everyone. That's just being a jerk.

[danfromwaterloo]

Are you absolutely sure that not a single person has died as a result of scent inhalation? We're talking people with asthma, pneumonia, various other respiratory diseases... how sure are you of the above statement?

I'm 100% sure nobody has died from scent. They might have died from an asthma attack precipitated by the scents, but the scents themselves are harmless. This is INSTIGATORY versus CAUSATORY. In one form, everything has killed somebody SOMETIME SOMEHOW. Hell, there are people who drank themselves to death WITH WATER. Should we ban water?

People with asthma need inhalers that they should have on them at all times. If they die because they have an attack and they don't have an inhaler, its THEIR FAULT, not anybody elses.

[najibs]

I'm 100% sure nobody has died from scent. They might have died from an asthma attack precipitated by the scents, but the scents themselves are harmless.

LOL, but then you can say that someone didn't die from chlorine gas itself, but they died from inhaling it :cheesygri

I'm just pulling your leg dude

[poedua]

I'm 100% sure nobody has died from scent. They might have died from an asthma attack precipitated by the scents, but the scents themselves are harmless. This is INSTIGATORY versus CAUSATORY. In one form, everything has killed somebody SOMETIME SOMEHOW. Hell, there are people who drank themselves to death WITH WATER. Should we ban water?

People with asthma need inhalers that they should have on them at all times. If they die because they have an attack and they don't have an inhaler, its THEIR FAULT, not anybody elses.

But a victim of second hand smoke has no fault - correct ?

[danfromwaterloo]

LOL, but then you can say that someone didn't die from chlorine gas itself, but they died from inhaling it :cheesygri

I'm just pulling your leg dude

Everything on earth has at some point caused death. Everything. Even Nerf balls I'm sure have been swallowed by someone somewhere. Now, given the normal person, has scents killed anybody? No.

Given the average person, smoking causes harm. Should that be made illegal? No - people have the ability to choose. Should it be illegal to smoke in public? Yes. As much as I'll defend a smokers right to smoke in areas - in the general public, people shouldn't smoke. Go outside and smoke there.

[danfromwaterloo]

But a victim of second hand smoke has no fault - correct ?

Depends if they choose to inhale it. If you cannot leave, the fault is not yours. While you have choice, you have responsibility. Lets say you're outside, and you choose to walk past smokers - then yes, you are at fault for putting yourself in the position to breathe that polluted air. You could have crossed the street.

[poedua]

Everything on earth has at some point caused death. Everything. Even Nerf balls I'm sure have been swallowed by someone somewhere. Now, given the normal person, has scents killed anybody? No.

Given the average person, smoking causes harm. Should that be made illegal? No - people have the ability to choose. Should it be illegal to smoke in public? Yes. As much as I'll defend a smokers right to smoke in areas - in the general public, people shouldn't smoke. Go outside and smoke there.

I'll ask the question i asked earlier.

Do you defend peanut bans in schools ?

If your kid had a peanut allergy that could kill her ( i.e he/ she needs to carry around a an epi-pen ) ... would you support every kid in their school being able to bring PB&J sandwiches to school 5 days a week ?

Because if you did, would you have her schooled at home or would you send her to this school ?..... knowing she was taking her life into her own hands by going. She could easily go in to shock 5 days a week at school

[mr_smartman]

i think most people these days are appling too much cologne or perfume, its really tacky to do so... and its rideoulous how people soak themselves in it. These products are ment to just create a small scent around your body. Not turn you into a air freshner

[poedua]

Depends if they choose to inhale it. If you cannot leave, the fault is not yours. .

It's not a choice at all ...if someone's smoke enters my space - I have to inhale the air around me - I have to breathe it whether I like it or not. . So, I'm in an area...someone comes in over to smoke in my space......I have to leave? ......the smoker can stay? ......is that it ? His needs trump mine ?

[danfromwaterloo]

I'll ask the question i asked earlier.

Do you defend peanut bans in schools ?

No. I don't. And not because I'm an uncaring bastard, but because there's a lot of other things that are in play here.

1. Kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts need to always keep up the guard that there could be peanuts in their food. To EVER assume that something is peanut free is a death sentence.
2. You can never be assured that food is peanut free. Ever. At some point, it may have come into contact with other things.
3. There are tons of food allergies out there - shellfish, peanuts, lactose intolerance, chocolate, eggs - I could go on forever - at what point do we conclude that enough is enough, and everybody needs to be responsible for their own intake.

If your kid had a peanut allergy that could kill her ( i.e he/ she needs to carry around a an epi-pen ) ... would you support every kid in their school being able to bring PB&J sandwiches to school 5 days a week ?

Absolutely, I would. I'd make sure that my kid knew about her affliction and made sure she knew how to avoid her allergies. I was an epileptic when I was younger - I had to make sure I avoided flashing lights. Does that mean that I should have asked them to take down the lights at the dances? No. I just had to be careful around them. You CANNOT operate a society by playing down to the lowest common denominator all the time.

Because if you did, would you have her schooled at home or would you send her to this school ?..... knowing she was taking her life into her own hands by going. She could easily go in to shock 5 days a week at school

Guess what. Your child takes her own life into her hands wherever she is and wherever she goes. She could be hit in a car, killed by a predator, terrorist attack, or random drive-by peanutting. When your time is up, your time is up. You have to make her aware of how to help herself - not prevent everybody else from enjoying what she cannot. That's not fair to the majority.

[danfromwaterloo]

It's not a choice at all ...if someone's smoke enters my space - I have to inhale the air around me - I have to breathe it whether I like it or not. . So, I'm in an area...someone comes in over to smoke in my space......I have to leave? ......the smoker can stay? ......is that it ? His needs trump mine ?

You make the conscious choice to act or not to act. If you chose to stay, it's not his needs trumping yours....its your desire to stay that's trumping your desire to move to protect your health. Its not about him and you. He is legally allowed to smoke in an area where you're currently existing - assuming its a smoking allowed area. He's not doing anything illegal. You can chose to stay put and take the harm, or move and be safe. Think of it that way.

Imagine if you're crossing a street. You decide to stand in the middle of the road, just as a speeding car is approaching you. You can move and stay safe or stay put and be hit. Its not "his needs versus my needs" - its my desire to stay safe versus my desire to stay put.

[charger]

In a lot of workplaces there are already policies in place banning colognes and perfumes. Hospitals and such. Some people are very allergic. As for banning it though, it is next to impossible to enforce.

[poedua]

No. I don't. And not because I'm an uncaring bastard, but because there's a lot of other things that are in play here.

1. Kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts need to always keep up the guard that there could be peanuts in their food. To EVER assume that something is peanut free is a death sentence.
2. You can never be assured that food is peanut free. Ever. At some point, it may have come into contact with other things.
3. There are tons of food allergies out there - shellfish, peanuts, lactose intolerance, chocolate, eggs - I could go on forever - at what point do we conclude that enough is enough, and everybody needs to be responsible for their own intake.



Absolutely, I would. I'd make sure that my kid knew about her affliction and made sure she knew how to avoid her allergies. I was an epileptic when I was younger - I had to make sure I avoided flashing lights. Does that mean that I should have asked them to take down the lights at the dances? No. I just had to be careful around them. You CANNOT operate a society by playing down to the lowest common denominator all the time.



Guess what. Your child takes her own life into her hands wherever she is and wherever she goes. She could be hit in a car, killed by a predator, terrorist attack, or random drive-by peanutting. When your time is up, your time is up. You have to make her aware of how to help herself - not prevent everybody else from enjoying what she cannot. That's not fair to the majority.

How many kids do you have and what are their ages ?

[danfromwaterloo]

How many kids do you have and what are their ages ?

I don't have kids, but I have neices and nephews that range between 4 and 10. And if any of them had peanut allergies, I wouldn't feel any different. Yes, I know its part of the parenting gene that makes you feel like your child should be perfectly normal, but children aren't going to be. They'll have allergies, illnesses, diseases, and the like that will be a danger to themselves. Most of these will in fact be preventable, but because there will always be these dangers, you have to teach the child to live with them , and not try and eliminate them from the world...that would be stupid and unsuccessful. Its like GWB trying to rid the world of terrorists...it won't happen.

But its no doubt that you'll dismiss my opinion as simply that from a non-parent, and therefore, it has no validity. That's your perrogative. But instead of trying to ban pools, teach your child to swim.

[Txiasaeia]

Right, but smoking CAUSES harm...perfume IRRITATES a pre-existing condition.

Smoking can also irritate a pre-existing condition as well, and if you Google "health risks perfume," you'll see that many components of perfume are actually quite toxic: they've been tested to make sure that the chemicals don't seep into the body through the skin, but most have not been tested for exposure through the lungs.

Lets say that I'm lactose intolerant. Does that mean milk should be made illegal because I can't take it? No. Does that mean that if I drink milk by accident in foods that its not my fault? No. This is my problem, and I need to be aware that milk may have come into contact with this food. My issue shouldn't everyone. That's just being a jerk.

First, perfume isn't a natural substance; milk is. Second, milk has health benefits; perfume doesn't. Third, if I drink a glass of milk in a room, somebody walking by me isn't going to have a potentially life-threatening asthma attack. Fourth, if I'm lactose intolerant, I can take a pill and avoid the allergy; no such workaround exists for perfume.

[poedua]

You make the conscious choice to act or not to act. If you chose to stay, it's not his needs trumping yours....its your desire to stay that's trumping your desire to move to protect your health. Its not about him and you. He is legally allowed to smoke in an area where you're currently existing - assuming its a smoking allowed area. He's not doing anything illegal. You can chose to stay put and take the harm, or move and be safe. Think of it that way.

Imagine if you're crossing a street. You decide to stand in the middle of the road, just as a speeding car is approaching you. You can move and stay safe or stay put and be hit. Its not "his needs versus my needs" - its my desire to stay safe versus my desire to stay put.

its my desire to stay safe versus my desire to stay put......


..you mean the same sort of desire a kid with a severe peanut allergy would have to leave a school with peanut butter sandwiches all around him / her ? The kid would rather leave the school and stay safe than " stay put" with all those sandwhiches which would likely put her in shock and have her being sent to the hospital ...that is a legitimate desire of hers...to seek safety ..... isn't it ?

[poedua]

I don't have kids, but I have neices and nephews that range between 4 and 10. And if any of them had peanut allergies, I wouldn't feel any different. Yes, I know its part of the parenting gene that makes you feel like your child should be perfectly normal, but children aren't going to be. They'll have allergies, illnesses, diseases, and the like that will be a danger to themselves. Most of these will in fact be preventable, but because there will always be these dangers, you have to teach the child to live with them , and not try and eliminate them from the world...that would be stupid and unsuccessful. Its like GWB trying to rid the world of terrorists...it won't happen.

But its no doubt that you'll dismiss my opinion as simply that from a non-parent, and therefore, it has no validity. That's your perrogative. But instead of trying to ban pools, teach your child to swim.

Let's say you had kids.

If you got a call at work from the school and were told your kid had been rushed to hospital emergency due to breathing problems...would you drop everything then and there and leave work right away to tend to your child in hospital ?

[danfromwaterloo]

Let's say you had kids.

If you got a call at work from the school and were told your kid had been rushed to hospital emergency due to breathing problems...would you drop everything then and there and leave work right away to tend to your child in hospital ?

Absolutely, 100% I'd drop everything. My children would be everything to me.

[Txiasaeia]

People with asthma need inhalers that they should have on them at all times. If they die because they have an attack and they don't have an inhaler, its THEIR FAULT, not anybody elses.

So if somebody gets shot but isn't wearing a bullet proof vest, then it's their fault because their body is vulnerable?

I'll forgive you for not knowing a lot about asthma: chronic asthma can be triggered by many different things. Personal example: my asthma is usually under control, but if I get a lung cold, then I'm in serious trouble. I require massive amounts of steroids in order to breathe. If, in that state (meaning my normal drugs + steroids) I were to walk into a house filled with strong potpourri or be surrounded by a group of people wearing perfume, ventolin wouldn't cut it. If I stayed in that environment (and that's the kicker), I could very well have a fatal asthma attack.

But even in that weakened state, if somebody walked by with strong perfume, I'd probably be fine. But other than asthma, I'm a fairly healthy guy. Somebody with a preexisting lung condition or pneumonia that's also on steroids would be in an extremely fragile state and could very well be killed by incidental exposure to perfume or cigarette smoke. I know it must sound absolutely ridiculous to you, but I'm not pulling your leg.

They might have died from an asthma attack precipitated by the scents, but the scents themselves are harmless.

Get a bottle of cologne and google the ingredients.

[Txiasaeia]

No. I don't. And not because I'm an uncaring bastard, but because there's a lot of other things that are in play here.

1. Kids who are deathly allergic to peanuts need to always keep up the guard that there could be peanuts in their food. To EVER assume that something is peanut free is a death sentence.

Once upon a time, I was a lunchroom monitor for a class of grade one kids. Six year old children are just that - children. They know that they shouldn't do something, but sometimes they just plain forget. As strange as it sounds, their health shouldn't be threatened just because they're kids.

3. There are tons of food allergies out there - shellfish, peanuts, lactose intolerance, chocolate, eggs - I could go on forever - at what point do we conclude that enough is enough, and everybody needs to be responsible for their own intake.

Nut allergies are deadly. Look that up, too. A friend of mine used to get nauseous if she merely smelled peanut butter, and carried with her an epipen in case she accidentally came into *contact* (as in, touched) nuts. It's very, very serious stuff.

I doubt a lot of kids bring shellfish with them for lunch, and eggs/chocolate/milk don't usually cause death, even in serious cases of allergy.

[danfromwaterloo]

First, perfume isn't a natural substance; milk is. Second, milk has health benefits; perfume doesn't. Third, if I drink a glass of milk in a room, somebody walking by me isn't going to have a potentially life-threatening asthma attack. Fourth, if I'm lactose intolerant, I can take a pill and avoid the allergy; no such workaround exists for perfume.

1. Please define natural.
2. Cologne has health benefits - it gets you laid, which is exercise. Exercise is good for the heart.
3. If you're wearing cologne and someone happens to walk by, chances are, they're not suddenly going to have an asthma attack. If they, hypothetically DID have an asthma attack, simply by walking by you, chances are they can't deal with day-to-day smells either, like normal allergens in the air. Therefore, they should have a way to deal with it rather than forcing everybody around them to conform. NOW, it is common courtesy to say "You have strong allergies? I won't wear perfume then." But you can't legislate being decent to one another.
4. Asthma inhalers prevent asthma attacks. Workaround for perfume? Sure, you can leave, or wear one of those breathmasks. You just choose not to look like a tool wearing one.

[poedua]

Absolutely, 100% I'd drop everything. My children would be everything to me.

And if your kid had a severe peanut allergy , and she / he was rushed to emgergency due to a severe peanut reaction at school...lets' say out of a couple hundred kids .....a dozen or so kid brought PB& J sandwiches to school.

Would that change your thinking in any way ?

[danfromwaterloo]

Once upon a time, I was a lunchroom monitor for a class of grade one kids. Six year old children are just that - children. They know that they shouldn't do something, but sometimes they just plain forget. As strange as it sounds, their health shouldn't be threatened just because they're kids.

Don't get me wrong - I'm REALLY not against children. I love them. But where do you draw the line with allergens? If a kid has asthma, are they to remove any and all allergens from the schools? The minute the kid steps outside the school, he could catch a whiff of the pollen in the air to trigger an attack. When I had my epilepsy, people didn't stop playing gameboy. I couldn't stop the rest of the class from going through the strobe lights at the science centre. Even from a YOUNG age, I knew that I couldn't do that. Therefore I AVOIDED it. I didn't want anybody doing without just because I couldn't go dance in front of a strobe light - even if it was a danger to me.


Nut allergies are deadly. Look that up, too. A friend of mine used to get nauseous if she merely smelled peanut butter, and carried with her an epipen in case she accidentally came into *contact* (as in, touched) nuts. It's very, very serious stuff.

I doubt a lot of kids bring shellfish with them for lunch, and eggs/chocolate/milk don't usually cause death, even in serious cases of allergy.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the nut allergies being deadly. But children need to be constantly vigilant about what they eat. Lets say you tell your kid to not eat nuts. Lets say the cafeteria doesn't serve nuts. Let's say your kid swaps sandwiches with another kid, which happens to have nuts in it. How in the world are you going to legislate the prevention of that? What about eating a cookie from a friend that his mom made - oops, that had nuts too. What about the supplier to the cafeteria that accidentally had nuts in it and the cafeteria serves it to your kid? You can try and ban nuts all you want, but the chances of them still being in the food will exist. Prevent the deaths by ensuring that the epi-pens are around every lunch room. Make sure your kids know that they're allergic, what to do and what to avoid, and tell them that while they have to avoid nuts, even things that are labelled safe might be contaminated. You cannot protect your children like this, as much as you want to. I can understand it, really. But in this case, prevention will end up doing less good than not.

[danfromwaterloo]

And if your kid had a severe peanut allergy , and she / he was rushed to emgergency due to a severe peanut reaction at school...lets' say out of a couple hundred kids .....a dozen or so kid brought PB& J sandwiches to school.

Would that change your thinking in any way ?

Nope. Not in the slightest. Its not the kids fault your kid is allergic. Its also not their fault they're NOT allergic. Your kid ate the wrong thing by accident.

[danfromwaterloo]

And if your kid had a severe peanut allergy , and she / he was rushed to emgergency due to a severe peanut reaction at school...lets' say out of a couple hundred kids .....a dozen or so kid brought PB& J sandwiches to school.

Would that change your thinking in any way ?

How would you propose legislating no-peanuts-allowed? Do you have teachers inspecting sandwiches? They couldn't even catch POT in my LOCKER when I was in HS. Let alone PEANUTS.

[boonjaca]

2. Cologne has health benefits - it gets you laid, which is exercise. Exercise is good for the heart.


I think this is the best argument.... :D

[poedua]

Nope. Not in the slightest. Its not the kids fault your kid is allergic. Its also not their fault they're NOT allergic. Your kid ate the wrong thing by accident.

I'm not talking about my kid..I said " And if your kid had a severe peanut allergy "

Assume your kid has a severe peanut allergy.

Now. If they allow PB&J's in your kid's scool...there'll be a dozen or 2 of them there each day at school. Txiasaeia can back ne up on this. As soon as your kid touches anything one of those PB&J' kids touched ( water fountain, door handle, washroom, pen etc. etc. ) your kid will start to go into an allergic reaction shock.....and even assuming they can reach an epi-pen in time.....your kid will still be tranported to emergency...each day..

A severe peanut allergy in your child ...and at least 2 dozen PB & J's each day a school.

It is 100% certain your kid will have a shock reaction each day and will be sent to emerg each day ( even with an epi-pen ) - 5 days a week- the entire school year ...September to June . You' d be called from work to rush to emerg 5 days a week and your kid will miss 2/3 hours of. school each day.

You said you would drop everything and rush to the hospital ...how long would your employer tolerate you leaving work each day , 5 days a week day - half your day spent at the hospital ?

And, how will your kid pass his / her grade missing 2/3 hours of class a day ?

And need I even bring up the psycholocal impact of going in to shock 5 days a week will do to your kid

[FastFokker]

Hey good to see Dan picked up the slack while I was gone.

Freedom is great, we don't need more rules.

If a place of business makes certain things policy, that's fine. But I just don't enjoy hearing people trying to impose more restrictions on themselves.

It's about consideration, if someone is so inconsiderate that they layer on the cologne, you should be equally as inconsiderate and tell them their cologne is horrible and they should use less.

Banning or making smell illegal or punishable by fine/jail is just ridiculous.

I'm all for being reasonable, and yes I'm against people who use too much stink, but I'd rather have overly stinky citizens than overly stinky criminals.

[danfromwaterloo]

I'm not talking about my kid..I said " And if your kid had a severe peanut allergy "

Right. Its not other kid's fault for not being allergic, any more than its his fault for being allergic.


Assume your kid has a severe peanut allergy.


I did.


Now. If they allow PB&J's in your kid's scool...there'll be a dozen or 2 of them there each day at school. Txiasaeia can back ne up on this. As soon as your kid touches anything one of those PB&J' kids touched ( water fountain, door handle, washroom, pen etc. etc. ) your kid will start to go into an allergic reaction shock.....and even assuming they can reach an epi-pen in time.....your kid will still be tranported to emergency...each day..

I understand the premise. And in a theoretical world, sure, eliminate all allergens. But you can't. You'll NEVER be able to eliminate peanuts from schools. Try as you might, it'll never happen.


A severe peanut allergy in your child ...and at least 2 dozen PB & J's each day a school.

Yes, I'm aware of the concepts.


It is 100% certain your kid will have a shock reaction each day and will be sent to emerg each day ( even with an epi-pen ) - 5 days a week- the entire school year ...September to June . You' d be called from work to rush to emerg 5 days a week and your kid will miss 2/3 hours of. school each day.

In this hypothetical world of "my child" having an insanely huge reaction to peanuts, I'd make him wear gloves.


You said you would drop everything and rush to the hospital ...how long would your employer tolerate you leaving work each day , 5 days a week day - half your day spent at the hospital ?

Not very long. That's why I'd make sure he wore gloves.


And, how will your kid pass his / her grade missing 2/3 hours of class a day ?


Studying outside of class.


And need I even bring up the psycholocal impact of going in to shock 5 days a week will do to your kid

I can understand - I can't really fathom it because I don't have to go through it. And I'm not going to patronize this by saying I know what its like because I don't. But you can't make it illegal to bring peanuts to school. I would call each and every parent and talk to them to ask them not to bring peanuts, but in the end, that's all you can do. No, its not fair, but that's life.

[danfromwaterloo]

Hey good to see Dan picked up the slack while I was gone.

Freedom is great, we don't need more rules.

If a place of business makes certain things policy, that's fine. But I just don't enjoy hearing people trying to impose more restrictions on themselves.

It's about consideration, if someone is so inconsiderate that they layer on the cologne, you should be equally as inconsiderate and tell them their cologne is horrible and they should use less.

Banning or making smell illegal or punishable by fine/jail is just ridiculous.

I'm all for being reasonable, and yes I'm against people who use too much stink, but I'd rather have overly stinky citizens than overly stinky criminals.


QFFT (the extra F is for fcuking). People want to take the law and wrap it around what is convenient them. Or what they perceive to be fair. As a result, people are living according to the law solely. If its legal, its moral. If its illegal its immoral. Period.

You know what makes all this go away? Consideration for somebody else. People think that because they CAN do something, they're entitled to do it, and they must at every point. People think that because they CANNOT do something, others must NOT be entitled to do it, and the must stop others at every point.

You don't like smoke? Ask them to stop, if you cannot leave. Don't ask a guy on the street to butt out. DO ask a co-worker to butt out if the smoke is bugging you. Chances are, he'll stop smoking near you.

You don't like perfume? Ask the person nicely not to wear it quite so strong, and explain your allergies. Chances are, they'll stop.

Your kid is allergic to peanuts? Ask the people not to bring peanuts.

What are the commonalities here? People being asked not to do something when they have every right to do it, out of common courtesy. Most people will gladly not do it if they know its bugging you, but for the others, you can't take away their rights because its annoying/bugging/potentially dangerous to only you.

[Crotchety Old Man]

Wow, danfromwaterloo is quite vocal on this topic - and as in the immortal words of William Shakespeare - "Methinks he doth protest too much":

Can we deduce that he has a severe body odour issue, that he treats with massive doses of Axe Body Spray?

:confused:

[wbastien]

the worst thing about cologne/perfume/sprays is when you are walking down the hall in school and someone decides to start showering themself in it; thus, making you smell like cheap cologne/choke on it.

[poedua]

Right. Its not other kid's fault for not being allergic, any more than its his fault for being allergic..

I never brought up " fault ' as part of my argument - you did


I understand the premise. And in a theoretical world, sure, eliminate all allergens. But you can't. You'll NEVER be able to eliminate peanuts from schools. Try as you might, it'll never happen. ..

It's not easy..but not impossible.


In this hypothetical world of "my child" having an insanely huge reaction to peanuts, I'd make him wear gloves...

Gloves may not help with " severe " allergies. With " severe " allergies kids are so sensitive to nuts and peanuts that they get an allergic reaction just from inhaling small particles of that food -which would be everywhere in a school that allowed peanuts and anything with peanuts - just being around nuts and peanuts can cause you to have an allergic reaction, even if you don't touch them . Airborne particles is why some airlines have banned peanuts.

So, along with wearing gloves all day, you'd have to add the need to have your kid wear a surgical mask all day.


Studying outside of class..

Making up for up to 15 hours of lost class time a week with a tutor to work with your kid in the evenings and weekends...along with homework...no argument....quite do-able.



But you can't make it illegal to bring peanuts to school. I would call each and every parent and talk to them to ask them not to bring peanuts, but in the end, that's all you can do. No, its not fair, but that's life.

Why would you ask them that ?? ...didn't you say the " majority" should eat what they want ...the allergic kid is on their own ? ...

" When your time is up, your time is up. You have to make her [allergic kid ] aware of how to help herself - not prevent everybody else from enjoying what she cannot. That's not fair to the majority."

[Siefer999]

No, but I think deodorant sprays should be banned.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in many offices, it is a general rule not to wear an obscene amount of purfume/colonge but where i work, there are a couple of ppl who stink up the place. you know where theyve been 5 mins ago because the smell lingers even after they are gone.

[danfromwaterloo]

Wow, danfromwaterloo is quite vocal on this topic - and as in the immortal words of William Shakespeare - "Methinks he doth protest too much":

Can we deduce that he has a severe body odour issue, that he treats with massive doses of Axe Body Spray?

:confused:

Actually, I don't wear cologne. I don't really like it. I like smelling clean, instead of smelling like anything.

[danfromwaterloo]

I never brought up " fault ' as part of my argument - you did

You're right. But you're assigning blame to others for your child's allergies - its others who are responsible for his reactions. Blame indicates fault.


It's not easy..but not impossible.


They said the same things about drugs. Look how successful they've been.


Gloves may not help with " severe " allergies. With " severe " allergies kids are so sensitive to nuts and peanuts that they get an allergic reaction just from inhaling small particles of that food -which would be everywhere in a school that allowed peanuts and anything with peanuts - just being around nuts and peanuts can cause you to have an allergic reaction, even if you don't touch them . Airborne particles is why some airlines have banned peanuts.

Well, in cases like that, I really have no recourse for you, short of removing them from school.


So, along with wearing gloves all day, you'd have to add the need to have your kid wear a surgical mask all day.

If they're that allergic, yes.


Making up for up to 15 hours of lost class time a week with a tutor to work with your kid in the evenings and weekends...along with homework...no argument....quite do-able.

To use your own words:


It's not easy..but not impossible.




Why would you ask them that ?? ...didn't you say the " majority" should eat what they want ...the allergic kid is on their own ? ...

" When your time is up, your time is up. You have to make her [allergic kid ] aware of how to help herself - not prevent everybody else from enjoying what she cannot. That's not fair to the majority."

You've taken what I intended out of context. LEGALLY, anybody should be allowed to eat anything they want, anywhere they want. Why would I ask them that? Common courtesy. Ask them to withhold sending peanuts. That's the most you'll be able to do.

[gordholio]

Realistically, how are you going to enforce a ban on perfumes (includes all scents)?
Have police going around sniffing people?
Pretty silly idea.
Inconvenience is a part of life. Everything is not always as we'd like it all the time.
The police have real problems to deal with like killings and robberies.
If some people don't have common sense to use a small amount of perfume, then it's sad - maybe there should be commercials about using perfumes in moderation.

[Txiasaeia]

Realistically, how are you going to enforce a ban on perfumes (includes all scents)?

Um, cut them off at the source? I personally prefer the idea of taxing such items 4-5x what they're worth.

[danfromwaterloo]

Um, cut them off at the source? I personally prefer the idea of taxing such items 4-5x what they're worth.



You know what I hate. Organized religion. It's more likely to be the cause of your deaths that perfumes. Perhaps we should start taxing religions.

[Txiasaeia]

You know what I hate. Organized religion. It's more likely to be the cause of your deaths that perfumes. Perhaps we should start taxing religions.



I highly doubt that the scent of a Christian wafting through a crowded restaurant is going to give anybody respiratory distress.

[gordholio]

Um, cut them off at the source? I personally prefer the idea of taxing such items 4-5x what they're worth.
I'm sure we all want to give more of our money to the government. :confused:

[Codegen]

The only problem I have with body spray is the people that use a can for each arm pit.

[Txiasaeia]

I'm sure we all want to give more of our money to the government. :confused:

I don't wear scents, so I wouldn't be giving *anything* to them - the idea is fine with me!

[gordholio]

The solution is to just use any perfumes or scents very sparingly or not at all.
But the individual should make the decision.
Just common sense and courtesy.

[removedaccount217459]

As an owner of many colognes, I can honestly say banning colognes is the next step to retardation. Its a shame that people have allergies too it, but its life. Im allergic to peanut butter and some kinds of fish but I dont tell anyone or even demand them to stop eating/carrying it around.

And for the people who say to just take a shower and use deoderant, well what if your BO is really bad? (Not saying that mine is, I just like to collect cologne. Axe smells to cheap and I find it really annoying when males in my school go to their locker in a packed hallway and start spraying that cheap smelling 7 dollar crap )

[Txiasaeia]

As an owner of many colognes, I can honestly say banning colognes is the next step to retardation.

Well, how could one argue with such an impartial and unbiased opinion? [/sarcasm]

[stealth]

Thw whole peanut butter ban topic is BS in my opinion. When I was in school, I never heard fo a single kid being so deathly allergic to it, then all of a sudden its the new plague? To the point of kids having to be rushed to hospitals after touching a waterfountain? So what of kids that go home for lunch? They now have restricted diets too? Better they just have chips and McDonalds? Makes me wonder who's spreading this culture of fear as I have seen no statistics whatsoever of how common this is here. If it is just 1 kid in a school, then yes, he should be responsible for his own health i.e. wear a mask, or perhaps a special scholl should be setup in a completely steril environment, as its the only was to guarantee saftey.
What if a nerwly immigrated Thai kid comes to school with a tupperware container with pad thai or some other peanut based sauce that his mom/grandmom who perhaps dont speak english sent with him?
Where does it end?
I think its unfortunate for the few kids that legitimately have these problems but by and large its the individuals responsibility , not society.

Also, Poedua, dogs are generally not permitted in hospitals as is cellphone use. Only a few exceptions occur, within a few select areas of the hospitals.
Perhaps we should ban cellphones too, and why not dogs? Some people have terrible phobias of them from bad past expereinces or cultures that view them as unhealthy. Heck look at the controversy surrounding a ban of a particulalry vicious and lethal breed of dog.

[Txiasaeia]

Thw whole peanut butter ban topic is BS in my opinion. When I was in school, I never heard fo a single kid being so deathly allergic to it, then all of a sudden its the new plague? To the point of kids having to be rushed to hospitals after touching a waterfountain? So what of kids that go home for lunch? They now have restricted diets too? Better they just have chips and McDonalds? Makes me wonder who's spreading this culture of fear as I have seen no statistics whatsoever of how common this is here. If it is just 1 kid in a school, then yes, he should be responsible for his own health i.e. wear a mask, or perhaps a special scholl should be setup in a completely steril environment, as its the only was to guarantee saftey.
What if a nerwly immigrated Thai kid comes to school with a tupperware container with pad thai or some other peanut based sauce that his mom/grandmom who perhaps dont speak english sent with him?
Where does it end?
I think its unfortunate for the few kids that legitimately have these problems but by and large its the individuals responsibility , not society.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=PEANUTS-02-26-06

[FastFokker]

Perhaps we should start taxing religions.Honestly we should.. if a religion was a religion they would be a nonprofit organization, rather than big business, on par for any other multi-national corporation.

I would completely support this movement.

[Txiasaeia]

Honestly we should.. if a religion was a religion they would be a nonprofit organization, rather than big business, on par for any other multi-national corporation.

I would completely support this movement.

Most churches *are* nonprofit.

[FastFokker]

Most churches *are* nonprofit.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[removedaccount217459]

Its possible, no need to be sarcastic
Well, how could one argue with such an impartial and unbiased opinion? [/sarcasm]